james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Brewin" <sbre...@synsys.com>
Subject RE: Status, Release Candidates and Derby
Date Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:29:16 GMT
Hi All,

I would prefer 2.3.0 for this release for the reasons stated by Stefano and
Søren. Beta or RC# I don't much care about, they mean different things to
different people. Its more important to make our intent clear - a feature
stable release, just shaking out the bugs.

If we're unsure that we can shake out the Derby bugs quickly we should pull
this feature so that we can cycle through releases quickly to get to a final
release soon. It would be better to add Derby in a subsequent 2.4.0 release
in the not too distant future than hold up this release.

I'ld say just my 2 cents, but as I've contibuted so little to this release,
maybe 1 cent.

Cheers and seasonal greetings to you all,

-- Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Søren Hilmer [mailto:sh@widetrail.dk]
> Sent: 15 December 2005 11:05
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Status, Release Candidates and Derby
>
>
> I am on par with Stefano regarding the number scheme, and
> also on a beta
> release before a RC release.
>
> IMO we should save 3.0 for the more drastic upcomming changes, and
> continue with 2.3.0 for this release.
>
> --Søren
>
> --
> Søren Hilmer, M.Sc., M.Crypt.
> wideTrail            Phone: +45 25481225
> Pilevænget 41        Email: sh@widetrail.dk
> DK-8961  Allingåbro  Web: www.widetrail.dk
>
> On Thu, December 15, 2005 11:20, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> >> Would people take a look at the current code and see if they feel
> >> comfortable with a release candidate?  Unless I encounter
> a definitive
> >> memory leak or other problem, I'd like to call a vote on a release
> >> candidate.  And since there are both configuration and functional
> >> changes,
> >> I'd suggest that v3 is perhaps the more appropriate
> designation than
> >> v2.3.
> >
> > I would better like a a 2.3b1 or 3.0b1 (beta release)
> before the 3.0rc1.
> >
> > I'm not sure James is ready for release candidate: changes
> I've done in
> > the past months need to be tested by a wider audience to understand
> > wether the users understand them or we need to change some
> behaviour.
> >
> > Furthermore, I think that we could change our opinion (I
> hope it doesn't
> > happen but i'm not sure) about the "default" configuration (for mail
> > stores, or anything else) after a beta cycle and I would
> not be happy to
> > change similar thing in release candidate cycles.
> >
> > Anyway I'm +1 for the release, soon!
> >
> > About the version numbers I'm +1 for a 2.3.0 and +0 for 3.0.
> >
> > We didn't publish a numbering rule, so it's a personal feeling.
> > I like the 2.3.0 because current trunk has less changes
> than the 2.1 to
> > 2.2 step and it's not a "revolution".
> >
> > I would prefer to keep the 3.0 for the "next generation" (pojo,
> > different container, different configuration style, much different
> > behaviours).
> >
> > My preference is for an early 2.3.0 release and a fast move
> to the 3.0.
> > 2.3.0 (current trunk) fixes a lot of bugs from 2.2.0 and is
> a due upgrade.
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org


Mime
View raw message